Wednesday, September 30, 2015

19 key numbers Republicans used to question Planned Parenthood

(Daily Signal)
The fight over Planned Parenthood reached a boiling point Tuesday on
Capitol Hill when Cecile Richards, president of the organization,
testified before Congress about how the group uses its federal taxpayer
dollars.
Richards fiercely defended Planned Parenthood from partisan
allegations made by House Republicans, which she called “outrageous,
“offensive” and “categorically untrue.”
“The latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents to
entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law — and once again
our opponents failed,” Richards said in her testimony before the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The hearing was called by Chairman Jason Chaffetz in light of
“disturbing” videos emerged this summer detailing tissue procurement
from aborted babies. Yet, during the hearing, members spent little time
addressing the videos.
Instead, Republican lawmakers focused their questioning on Planned
Parenthood’s finances and how it spends its $528 million taxpayer
dollars.
“Does Planned Parenthood really need federal subsidies? Does it need
federal dollars?” asked Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah. “As far as I
can tell, this is an organization that doesn’t need federal subsidies.”
Democrats, on the other hand, defended the organization and called
out Republicans for taking their fight against Planned Parenthood too
far.
“You threatened to shut down the government you ousted your speaker
and now you want to set off yet another select committee to
investigate,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Va. said. “Do you really want to
do this? Do you really want to align yourself with radical extremists?”
But Republicans didn’t back down, and spend the next five hours
peppering Richards with questions over the services Planned Parenthood
provides, their travel and party expenses, employee salaries and
“co-mingling” of 501c(3) and 501c(4) funds.
Here is a summary of the key points addressed in today’s hearing.Employee Salaries
Chaffetz questioned Richards about her $590,928 salary in 2013, and her combined income of more than $2.7 million from 2009 to 20013.
“Planned Parenthood is an organization with massive salaries,” Chaffetz said.
They also raised concern over reports that over 40 of Planned Parenthood’s executives earned $200,000 or more over the years 2009 to 2013.
Those include:

$459,827: employee at affiliate for Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota

$439,107: employee at Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic

$398,779: employee at Planned Parenthood of Southern New England

$387,269: employee at Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte

Democrats shot back, criticizing Republicans for “attacking a woman for making a good salary.”
“My colleagues like to say there’s no war on women,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.

Look at how you’ve been treated as a witness.
Intimidation, talking over, interrupting, cutting off sentences,
criticizing you because of your salary. How dare you? Who do you think
you are? Making a professional salary as a head of a premier national
organization, and daring to actually make decisions as the head of that
organization? Lord almighty, what’s America coming to? The disrespect,
the misogyny rampant here today tells us what’s really going on here.

Rep. John Duncan, Tenn., pushed back, telling Richards, “Surely you don’t expect us to go easy on you because you’re a woman.”

Travel and Party Expenses
Republicans also raised issue with the amount Planned Parenthood
spends on travel, galas, and real estate. According to their report, the
organization spent more than $5 million on travel on 2013, some of which was spent on first class or charter travel.
“For the record, I do not travel first class,” Richards said.
Republicans also pointed to “blowout parties” where reports say
affiliates hosted a “Chocolate Champagne” fundraiser, for example. They
also claim Planned Parenthood spent $43.8 million to purchase corporate office space two blocks from Madison Square Garden in New York City.
“The taxpayers are funding over 40 percent of Planned Parenthood—they
just have a right to know how this money is being spent,” Rep. Cynthia
Lummis, R-Wyo., told Richards (emphasis The Daily Signal’s).

Richards responded to this sentiment by downplaying the government’s
role in funding Planned Parenthood, stating, “We don’t get a big check
from the government.”
“We, like other Medicaid providers,” she added, “ are reimbursed for services.”
According to reports, the majority of federal funds Planned
Parenthood receives come from reimbursements from specific health
services provided through Medicaid. These reimbursements make up 41 percent of Planned Parenthood’s entire funding.‘Co-mingling’ of Health Care and Advocacy Work
In addition to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which
provides services to women through its nearly 700 health clinics and
affiliates, the organization has a lobbying arm called Planned
Parenthood Action Fund, which advocates specific legislation and
politicians who support those policies.

According to the Chairman’s memorandum, “Planned Parenthood has given the Planned Parenthood Action Fund $21,576,629
in grants,” and tax returns “indicate that both Planned Parenthood and
its affiliates share employees, facilities, equipment, mailing lists and
other assets” with the lobbying arm.

Republicans took issue with the structure of the two organizations,
alleging taxpayer dollars “subsidize” these political affiliates, which
routinely backs Democrat politicians.
“This is advocacy, lobbying, it’s get out the vote,” Chaffetz said.
“It’s the co-mingling of funds that bothers us. That’s what we’re
concerned about.”
Richards denied any wrongdoing, but said part of her salary is
derived from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and told Republicans she
would provide the committee with more information on the matter.

Sending Money Overseas
Republicans also requested more information about Planned Parenthood’s overseas funding.
According to his report, Planned Parenthood sent more than $32.1 millionoutside
the U.S. over the past five years. One of those locations was the
Democratic Republic of Congo, which Chaffetz said could be a serious
issue, since the U.S. has sanctions on the country.
“They’re so flush with cash they started giving money overseas,” Chaffetz said, sarcastically.
Richards responded she would follow up on this matter with more
information, but said the organization is committed to investing women’s
health services in developing countries.Planned Parenthood Services
Republicans press Richards on a number of its services, including why breast cancer screenings declined by nearly 50 percent from 2009-2013 according to reports.
“How many of your affiliates have mammogram machines?” asked Rep Mia Love, R-Utah.
“We do not have mammogram machines at our health centers and we’ve never stated that we did.”
Instead, Richards said the organization provides manual breast cancer
screenings and refers women who need a mammogram to other clinics.
According to Richards, Planned Parenthood performs about 300,000 abortions each year, which makes up up 3 percent of all health services at the clinics.
Republican lawmakers pressed Richards on these numbers, asking how the organization derived that statistic.

One affiliate lawmakers cited reported receiving $1.4 million from abortion services, making up 28 percent of that affiliate’s entire revenue.
“If 2.7 million women are served according to your testimony…and
[Planned Parenthood] annually provided 327,000 abortions last year
according to your report…I do the math…that comes up to 12 percent. So how do you get three percent?” asked Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC. (Emphasis The Daily Signal’s.)

“Some people come to us more than once for different services,” Richards responded.
When asked if stripping Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars
would affect its abortion services, Richards said, “I can’t think of a
specific impact.”
However, she said the proposal to defund the organization, “would
deny people on Medicaid the ability to go to a provider of their choice,
and many of them do go to Planned Parenthood for a variety of different
reasons.”

Walter Joshua Fretz, who lived 19 weeks. (Credit: Lexi Fretz & F2 Photography)
As Cecile Richards was testifying on Capitol Hill and letting many of
Planned Parenthood’s secrets out, MSNBC attempted to chip away at the
reputation of the Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover videos
have exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal fetal organ sales. Their
efforts failed.
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts interviewed Lexi Fretz, a photographer
and mother who shared images of her son Walter, born prematurely at 19
weeks, on Facebook. One of the photos of Walter was used in a Center for
Medical Progress video, depicting what a child at approximately 19-20 weeks looks like.
Lexi’s photos of her son have now saved countless lives and helped change people’s minds about abortion.
In an interview with Live Action in March, Fretz said:

For someone who survived so few minutes
outside of me, he’s left such an impact, more than I ever could. For
someone so tiny, he’s touched so many. I hope he keeps educating the
world and the masses as to what the preborn looks like on the inside –
that it’s not just a blob – it’s not a clump of cells.

But Roberts must not have been aware of this. He asked Fretz, “How do
you feel about Walter’s picture being used to discredit Planned
Parenthood?”
Fretz replied, “Well, my husband and I are actually extremely
pro-life so we were a little shocked at first and surprised […] but we
are extremely proud of our son and the path that the Lord has put us on,
just to help. I mean, he has saved many, many unborn lives.”
Fretz than shared stories of
people walking out of abortion appointments, or finally learning what a
preborn child looks like thanks to Walter’s photographs. She also told
Roberts – who kept referring to Walter as ‘stillborn’ – that Walter was
born alive, with a beating heart, and lived for a few moments.
Roberts then said:

I know that Walter’s story is very
precious for you and your family. This has been really distorted out of
context in this larger political conversation. Have you felt betrayed in
any way by Walter’s life being used and mischaracterized in such heavy —
and in some ways mischaracterized political debates?

Fretz replied:

I was a little surprised at first. Not
being directly asked. But at the same time, […] our lives are in God’s
hands. My and husband are trusting God and the ultimate perfect plan and
if this is happening, we are trusting that He is going to take care of
us and use Walter for His good.

Roberts again pressed Fretz, asking her if anyone from CMP reached
out to ask for permission to use Walter’s image in the “anti-abortion
video”. Fretz confirmed that no one had asked for permission. Roberts
repeated again that no one from CMP had reached out to tell Fretz that
CMP would be using Walter’s image to attempt to defund Planned
Parenthood. Fretz confirmed this.
Then Roberts asked Fretz if she expects an apology from CMP and Fretz shocked him with her reply:

No. I have talked to them directly and we’ve cleared the air and my husband and I are fine that it’s being used.

That’s when Robert ended the interview.
But the best moment from the interview with Fretz was her quote about being pro-life. She told Roberts, and all MSNBC viewers:

I just believe that every child should
have a chance, a chance to be alive, to make a difference. We had so
many little lives being lost and thrown away each day and I wish so much
that my son was here. We miss him and the short time we had was
precious with him. But I know his purpose; his purpose was to help to
educate the world as to what a child really looks like. You know, you
say fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, he was very much alive.
And I just believe that every, every little baby should have a chance.

Woman sees ultrasound, realizes she’s pregnant with “a little person”

By Sarah TerzoFrom
a woman who was being tested to see if her baby had Down syndrome or
another handicap; she had been considering abortion if the baby was
discovered to be disabled. She’s describing what she saw on the
ultrasound:

“I was on this incredible high,
like I saw the head and the little shoulders and then I came home and I
suddenly crashed because I thought, there was this little person, I
mean, it looked like a little person. And I was more upset than I’d ever
been because what would I do? You know, would I have an abortion?
Because here I’ve seen it, and it looks like a little person.”

Rayna Rapp “Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America” (New York: Routledge, 1999) 129Editor’s note. This appeared at clinicquotes.com.

When President Obama says protect ‘least of these’ he excludes millions of children

Editor’s note. These are excerpts from the remarks of
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ during floor debate today on HR 3495, the
Women’s Public Health and Safety Act. For more on HR 3495, see here.

Cong. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, last week Pope Francis admonished a joint session of
Congress to follow the Golden Rule—to “do unto others as you would have
them do unto you”—and said that the Golden Rule compels us to “protect
and defend human life at every stage of development,” and that “it is
wrong to remain silent and look the other way.” At the White House
welcoming ceremony earlier in the day, President Obama spoke of
protecting the “least of these” taken from Matthew’s Gospel chapter 25.
Yet every day, Planned Parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons to
death approximately 900 unborn babies—the “least of these”— and hurts
many women in the process.
Subsidized by half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, Planned
Parenthood kills a baby every two minutes—and has terminated the lives
of over seven million infants since 1973—a staggering loss of children
that equates with twice the number of every man, woman and child living
in the state of Connecticut.

So I rise in strong support of HR 3495—the Women’s Health and Public
Safety Act—authored by our distinguished colleague Sean Duffy to give
states the authority to defund Planned Parenthood.
States should have the freedom to choose who they subsidize and why.
But the President has denied that option to at least six states
including Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas—the
latter three states moved to defund in the wake of the recent undercover
videos by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

Now, because of the CMP videos, we know Planned Parenthood is also
trafficking in baby body parts—turning babies into human guinea pigs
while making the abortion industry even richer.
Although much of the media continues to ignore this scandal, Planned
Parenthood’s meticulously crafted façade of care and compassion has been
shattered. Caught on tape, Planned Parenthood’s top leadership—not
interns or lower level employees—show callous disregard for children’s
lives while gleefully calculating the financial gain.

Which begs the question: do Americans understand the violence done to
children in Planned Parenthood clinics? Have congressional
colleagues—has President Obama, who says we must care for the “least of
these”—watched the videos yet?
In one clip, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Services and a late term
abortionist herself says on camera: “We have been very good at getting
heart, lung, liver, because we know that, I am not going to crush that
part. I am going to basically crush below, I am going to crush above,
and I am going to see if I can get it all intact…I would say a lot of
people want liver; and for that reason, most providers will do this case
under ultrasound guidance, so they will know where they are putting
their forceps.”
In other words, crush the baby to death, but do it in a way that preserves organs and body parts for sale.

Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council President Dr. Mary
Gatter appears on a video nonchalantly talking about utilizing a “less
crunchy” abortion method—again to preserve baby body parts. Regarding
the price tag for baby body parts she says: “let me just figure out what
others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then its fine, if
it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

Planned Parenthood’s National Director for the Consortium of Abortion
Providers Deborah VanDerhei says “we’re just trying to figure out as an
industry…how we’re going to manage remuneration because the headlines
would be a disaster.” Concern for making money and avoiding bad press—no
concern whatsoever for the child victim. …
I suspect that if the President watches at least one of the videos,
he’d at least demand real answers concerning Planned Parenthood’s
inhumane behavior and violence directed at the “least of these.” Or at
least I hope he would.
Mr. Speaker, the videos have again brought into sharp focus the fact that some babies actually survive abortion.

Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice President and Medical Director of Planned
Parenthood Rocky Mountains, confesses that “Sometimes, we get – if
someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure then they
(the baby) are intact… .” A fetal tissue broker describes watching a
“fetus…just fell out.”
It just fell out. It, the baby, fell out, she says. And then what happened to that baby?
Tragically, we know what happens to these victimized babies—they are killed and some have their organs stolen.
The Women’s Public Health and Safety Act gives states the choice to protect the “least of these.”

Five Takeaways from House Oversight Committee hearing on PPFA’s governmental funding

By Dave AndruskoIn
a nearly five hour long hearing, PPFA President Cecile Richards today
sparred with critics on the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee and basked in praise from supporters. Here are five takeaways
from the hearing which centered on taxpayer funding of the largest
abortion provider in the United States. As was noted early and often,
government funding makes up 41% of PPFA’s $1.3 billion in revenues.
#1. After watching every minute, it’s easy to understand why Ms.
Richards was paid a tidy sum of $590, 928 in 2013. Regardless of how a
given question was initially asked, and no matter how many different
ways it might have been asked subsequently, her answers went as far as
she wanted them to go and no further. When she was repeatedly
non-responsive, Richards would smile and tell the questioner that
Richards and the questioner must agree to disagree, the clear
implication being the questioner was incapable of understanding plain
English.

#2. Richards was asked by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) about the video
PPFA produced after the first undercover video was released by the
Center for Medical Progress

ww.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUjU4e4fUI]. In
their official rebuttal, Richards saidOur top priority is the
compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff
members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is
unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and
statements.

What “statements” had Dr. Deborah Nucatola made to the CMP
investigators for which Richards felt the need to apologize? Richards
simply refused to answer. Instead she rewrote history.
What she’d been talking about was that it was “Inappropriate to have a
clinical discussion in a non-confidential setting in a nonclinical
setting.” (This, by the way, could have been said about a number of
other Planned Parenthood officials as they haggled over prices for baby
body parts.) Asked repeatedly what the “statements” were, Richards
continued to duck, feint, and evade. Eventually she recycled a line from
the video–that “it did not reflect the compassionate care PPFA gives.”
#3. A lot of numbers came out in the hearing that to a less confident
and self-assured (and politically-wired) CEO would have been extremely
unnerving. Not just the hefty salaries a number of PPFA executives are
paid (40 executives were paid over $200,000 for the years 2009-2013), or
the $14,000 dollars a day Planned Parenthood spends on travel, or the
$34.8 million it spent to purchase corporate office space two blocks
from Madison Square Garden. Richards was unfazed.
When it was noted that PPFA had an endowment of more than $100
million (various affiliates have their own endowments), Richards said
that was or would be used to build new clinics or provide additional
health services to women. This evasion was important. Committee members
showed how PPFA annually has considerably more revenue than expenses and
could have provided every health service every single service to every
single woman without federal money.
Richards dusted off the old abortion is just 3% of the services PPFA
provides. But, as Richards said repeatedly, PPFA serve 2.7 million
clients, if there are roughly 327,000 abortions, how can Richards say
that abortion constitutes 3% of its services? (It’s more like 12%.)
Richards slid off into the usual, usual about repeat visits. But even the Washington Post Factchecker has seen through that charade.

And one question Richards skated by over and over: how many
affiliates receive a majority of their revenue from abortion–and who are
they?
#4. Richards was asked by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) what should be
done if a baby survives an abortion. She paused and said she had never
heard of such a circumstance happening, which, to put in the politest
terms, is impossible to believe. She then quickly added none (no babies
surviving) that she was aware of at a PPFA facility. “We don’t provide
abortions after viability.”
Another evasion, since live births can occur a month or more before “viability.”
Moreover, Richard’s claim warrants scrutiny. As NRLC’s director of
Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon wrote in 2013 , “The truth is that
Planned Parenthood clinics advertise and perform abortions well into the
second trimester, even up to 24 weeks (with hints it can ‘help’ if the
woman is even more advanced).”

Note that a recent New England Journal of Medicine study found that 23% of infants are surviving at an 22 weeks of pregnancy (20 weeks after fertilization) with treatment.
#5. Give pro-abortion Democrats on the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee their due. In their world to ask Cecile Richards
exactly what she meant and ask if she would she agree to provide certain
information was “disgraceful,” evidence of misogyny, beating up on a
woman, “insensitive,” an “offensive approach” filled with “badgering”
rhetoric.
Meanwhile, of course, committee Democrats had no trouble lambasting
committee Republicans for aligning themselves with “radical extremists
who manipulate the facts.” Nor were they shy about insisting the
committee’s “integrity” had been compromised by even having this
hearing. And, they mimicked Richards’ self-serving claim that the
committee’s inquiry was not, in the end, about Planned Parenthood, but
was an attack the 2.7 million women who receive “health care” from
Planned Parenthood.

But committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) ended by summarizing
the areas the committee still had questions about. There were plenty.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Planned Parenthood supporters throw condoms at Carly Fiorina event

GOP
presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was campaigning at a tailgating
event for the Iowa Hawkeyes on Saturday when Planned Parenthood
supporters decided to disrupt her event. While the protesters’ actions
were certainly less than classy, they were not all that surprising.
ABC News reported
that Planned Parenthood supporters showed up in their trademark pink
garb. During the event they shouted out their tagline, “Women are
watching and we vote.” Some Fiorina supporters yelled back, “So do we.”

At one point, the Planned Parenthood
supporters even threw condoms at the crowd. A patient from Planned
Parenthood, Cindy Shireman, also made her way over to Fiorina to
confront her, claiming Fiorina doesn’t support women’s health.

Fiorina grasped her hand and offered right back that she, of course, does support it.
Fiorina is pro-life. Recently though, she cameunderfire
from Planned Parenthood and the mainstream media after calling out the
abortion giant for harvesting the brain of a baby born alive from an
abortion. Fiorina was describing a video released by the Center for Medical Progress.
A Super PAC which supports Fiorina also released a campaign ad regarding the incident.
ABC reporter Jordyn Phelps tweeted images of the protesters, who looked fired up and ready to disrupt, as well as of the condoms thrown.

Planned Parenthood bills itself as a non-profit, trusted health care
organization. They also receive taxpayer dollars. And while
counter-protesters show up at events all the time, there are proper ways
to act. Perhaps Planned Parenthood’s supporters missed that memo.

Planned Parenthood seems obsessed with sex
and birth control of all kinds. But what is worse is they also butcher
babies, as Fiorina reminds us, and then profit from such a barbaric act.
Perhaps disrupting a campaign with their angry and wild
antics shouldn’t be all that unexpected.

Women truly do have options, over 13,000 of them. GetYourCare.org gives women the tools to locate a comprehensive, low-cost health center in their own area.
On Tuesday morning at 7:30 ET, U.S. Representatives Diane Black and
Marsha Blackburn joined ADF attorneys and other pro-life, pro-women
advocates, to announce the launching of GetYourCare.org. ADF’s press release explains:

The site provides a national map that
displays the locations of all centers currently eligible for federal
funds, with other types of centers to be added as time goes on.

“Thousands of low-cost health providers –
offering a wide range of women’s services, like breast cancer
screenings and preventative care – can be trusted with our hard-earned
money,” said ADF Director of Alliance Relations Alison Howard. “These
federally qualified health centers offer many of the same services as
Planned Parenthood and include many more services Planned Parenthood is
not licensed to do: immunizations, mammograms, cardiovascular blood
tests, diabetes and glaucoma screenings, radiological services, and
prenatal care, for example.”

GetYourCare.org is a resource made
available by the pro-women and pro-life movements of America. The site
explains that its goal “is to give women everywhere in America access to
information about the thousands and thousands of quality health care
options women have.”

“Better choices for women are usually
right around the corner. Alternative women’s health options are on
average less than five miles away from the nearest Planned Parenthood,”
Howard explained. “According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics,
fewer than 2 percent of women ever step into a Planned Parenthood
facility in a given year. There are better choices for women’s
healthcare than Planned Parenthood who’s president, Cecile Richards is
called before congress Tuesday morning to explain the scandals
surrounding her organization. Our tax money should fund those better
choices.”

The website’s sponsors include Alliance
Defending Freedom, Charlotte Lozier Institute, Concerned Women for
America, Family Research Council, Live Action, March for Life, March for
Life Action, Pregnant on Campus, Pro-Life Future, Susan B. Anthony
List, Students for Life, CitizenLink, Americans United for Life, and The
Radiance Foundation.

40 Days for Life expecting more miracles in its fall campaign

As the fall campaign for 40 Days for Life kicked off this week, the organization reminded people of the power of prayer in the fight to end abortion.
The fall 40 Days for Life campaign will continue through November 1,
and organizers are believing for more miracles like the one they saw in
Bryan/College Station, TX, the home of 40 Days for Life. A Planned
Parenthood there has since been closed, and is now the new headquarters
for 40 Days for Life–and will include both a lab and clinic for a local
pregnancy center and “medical services provided by two former
abortionists who had conversions and have become outspoken pro-life
advocates.”
Campaign Director Shawn Carney tells this story with pictures more than words, in his latest update when he says:

These photos show the former Planned
Parenthood abortion center in Bryan/College Station, Texas — the site of
the first-ever 40 Days for Life campaign back in 2004 … This is the
kind of story only God can write … and yet it’s not an isolated
occurrence.

After 40 Days for Life

While this Texas Planned Parenthood is probably the most notable of
the 40 Days for Life victories, it’s certainly not the only one. Carney
reports that since the first campaign locally in 2004 in Brayn/College
Station, TX and then the national campaign launch in 2007, 60 different
abortion facilities have been closed in places that 40 Days for Life
held prayer vigils.
The current campaign has 307 locations, and they welcome people to join them in peaceful prayer for the ending of abortion.

In its short history, the long list of results is remarkable and also
includes, “650,000 volunteer participants in 579 cities across 30
nations, 10,331 lives saved from abortion, 118 workers who have had
conversions and quit the abortion industry,” in addition to the 60
closed abortion facilities.

Parents choose life for daughter diagnosed prenatally with cancer and Down syndrome

By Nancy FlandersOn
August 6th, Erika and Stephen Jones welcomed their second daughter into
the world. But as joyous of an occasion as it was, it brought with it a
bit of fear and uncertainty. Baby Abigail had been diagnosed prenatally
with not one, but two health conditions.

At their 18-week ultrasound, the family was told there was strong
likelihood that Abigail had Down syndrome. A follow-up blood test proved
that she did.
“Initially, we were shocked and scared, mourning the loss of a
‘normal’ baby,” wrote Mrs. Jones in a blog post. “But God quickly worked
on our hearts and His peace surpassed our fear. We were soon very
excited and honored to have a child with special needs.”
But as their fears were lifted and they began to accept the diagnosis
of Down syndrome, doctors had more news for them to take in. The
30-week ultrasound revealed a mass growing in Abigail’s brain. It was a
rare cancerous tumor that was replacing the baby’s brain matter.
“Our hearts were broken and our minds weighted with questions and fear of the unknown to come,” wrote Mrs. Jones.

As the pregnancy progressed, so did the tumor – and doctors offered little hope.
“Leaning on the grace and perfection of our God, we knew little
Abby’s life had a purpose, no matter how long or short it was,”
explained Mrs. Jones. “We pray continually for her healing, but our
faith in God was/is not based on Abigail’s healing. God is not a god
that responds to our plans and how we want things to work out. Our faith
is in the loving Father that His plans are bigger than ours and those
plans will bring people to eternity. Sometimes the things He needs to
bring others to eternity may cause us to walk through tremendous pain
but we need to focus joy of the eternal and not the pain of the
temporal.”

Because the mass had grown so large, Abigail was born via C-section.
Doctors told the family that she might not live long after birth, but
Abigail has done well enough to be able to go home.
Her tumor is not treatable because of how aggressive it is, and
chemotherapy could kill a baby her age. In addition, doctors would not
be able to remove it all with surgery. Abigail is at home with her
parents and big sister with the help of pediatric hospice.
“This situation is tragic and unbelievably difficult,” wrote Mrs.
Jones. “[…] We don’t want to lose our daughter. We want to see her
laugh, dance, fight with her sister, ride a bike, go to school… we want
to see her life. […] Our hearts are broken and ache for the time that we
don’t have. We stand on this – our God is good.”

Abigail likely has just weeks or months to live. But her family is
spending that time loving her fully, knowing that her life has value and
meaning. Enjoying her for every moment she has and every second they
are given.
Editor’s note. This was first published in
http://liveactionnews.org/parents-choose-life-daughter-diagnosed-prenatally-cancer-syndrome/
and is reprinted with permission.

NRLC urges Congress to support the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act (H.R. 3495)

Dear Member of Congress:The
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state
right-to-life organizations, urges you to support the Women’s Public
Health and Safety Act (H.R. 3495), sponsored by Congressman Sean Duffy,
when it comes before the House of Representatives on September 29.

According to a Government Accountability Office report released March
20, 2015, PPFA received $344.5 million in federal funds over three
fiscal years (2010-2012), and another $1.2 billion in funding from
Medicaid (a combination of state and federal funds), for a three-year
total of $1.5 billion from federal programs.

PPFA is also the nation’s largest provider of abortions. Over
one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at PPFA-affiliated
facilities – indeed, one senior Planned Parenthood official boasted in
2014, “We have 40 percent of the [abortion] market in the whole
country.” PPFA now defines abortion as a “core” service, which means
that PPFA requires every PPFA affiliate to provide abortions. For
additional up-to-date information on the extent of Planned Parenthood’s
involvement in abortion, see: www.nrlc.org/communications/ppfamediabackground/

Longstanding objections to the massive federal funding of PPFA have
been reinforced by recent widely publicized undercover videos, which
illuminate involvement by some PPFA affiliates and executives in the
harvesting and selling of baby body parts. These highly troubling videos
have triggered ongoing investigations by multiple congressional
committees and by authorities in many states.

H.R. 3495 would make it clear that federal law does not prevent a
state from, at its option, excluding organizations that provide elective
abortions from the Medicaid program. We urge you to support this vital
legislation. NRLC intends to include the roll call on passage of H.R.
3495 in our scorecard of key pro-life roll calls of the 114th Congress.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Many
post-abortive women have talked about the lack of thorough counseling
in the clinics where they had their abortions. Women have described the abortion process as an “assembly line.” Stories of rushed, biased, and nonexistent counseling are sadly common.
Even abortion clinic workers have admitted that they spend very
little time counseling women. A big reason for this is that counseling
takes up time and slows patient flow at the clinics. Slower patient flow
means fewer abortions, which means less profit for the clinic.As one pro-choice author said in her book The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of Family-Planning Workers:

… As the clinic director was fond of
pointing out, counseling did not generate revenue for the clinic; being
seen in the medical room did. Perhaps the greatest problem with
slowdowns [counseling sessions that took longer than average] was the
risk of annoying doctors.

Sometimes even counseling was done in
groups to save time, ten or fifteen women sitting in a circle… At other
times I was strictly limited to a five-minute counseling session for
each patient.

So, knowing that abortion clinics tend to offer little time
counseling to begin with, it is disturbing to learn that some clinics
actually use “counseling” time not to explore a woman’s decision, screen
her for potential post-abortion problems, or give her information about
the abortion procedure. Instead, they indoctrinate her on the
pro-choice cause and coerce her into pro-choice activism.
Former abortion clinic worker Lorraine LaNeve stated, in a conference for former abortion providers:

I started my job functioning in all the
duties of a nurse. First, by preparing the clients in the waiting room
by medicating them with Valium and then influencing my captive audience
to write letters to the elected officials pleading that abortion should
remain a woman’s right….

LaNeve admits to manipulating drugged women into writing letters
supporting the pro-choice cause. These women, under the influence of
Valium, were easy to coerce into pro-choice activism. It is appalling to
consider that the women are manipulated in such a way. It is even more
appalling to realize that these letter writing sessions replaced
“counseling” at the clinic. There was not time enough to counsel women,
but there was time enough to coerce them into political activism.
Pro-choice author Marian Faux, who wrote a book about abortion that profiled pro-choice and pro-life activists, wrote about how one clinic utilized its “counseling sessions”:

… [T]he counselors have also been using
the counseling sessions to talk to women about the fact that legalized
abortion is now threatened and what they can do to preserve the right to
choose. Women are given post cards they can fill out and mail to their
elected officials asking them to support pro-choice [causes]. The clinic
also prints flyers that educate women about the abortion right.

Women at abortion clinics, drugged and very often emotionally
traumatized, are extremely vulnerable to this kind of manipulation by
clinic staff. The needs of these women are do not seem to be respected
in any way. When counseling becomes indoctrination, women are poorly
served. If a crisis pregnancy center were to take a woman in crisis,
administer drugs, and influence her to write pro-life letters before she
would be allowed to leave, pro-choicers would be up in arms, and
rightly so. This kind of unethical behavior only shows the lows to
which the abortion industry will sink.

What about my free speech?

So
let’s talk about free speech rights. Under the First Amendment of our
Constitution, our freedom of speech rights as United States citizens are
guaranteed: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press.” On Constitution Day last week, as I’m sure
many of you know, there was a free speech board set up outside
Centennial, one of the academic buildings on my college campus.

As a United States citizen celebrating my free speech rights, I wrote
a pro-life message about how I believe Planned Parenthood should be
defunded. The next day, as I walked by the board, I saw that my post had
been crossed out. So much for a free speech board.
Then, this Thursday, Students for Life, of which I’m a member,
chalked pro-life messages around the campus mall and hung up dozens of
flyers that had several different “defund Planned Parenthood” messages
in Davies and Centennial. We hung these flyers up in areas designated
specifically for organizations.

The next day, as I was walking through first floor Davies, I noticed
that every single flyer on that level, of which there were about thirty,
had been taken down. To top it off, somebody had written rude messages
directly underneath our chalking, and had attempted to smear out our
messages. So much for a designated free speech area.
Now let’s talk about tolerance. There seems to be a lot of confusion
going around as to what tolerance actually is. First, let me tell you
what it’s not. Tolerance isn’t agreeing with everyone or everything. In
fact, that’s one of the farthest things from the actual definition of
tolerance. To practice tolerance, you first have to disagree with
somebody or something. Tolerance is disagreeing with somebody or
something and then putting up with them or it anyway. As Chris
Stefanick, a Catholic speaker, has said, “You don’t tolerate a
beautiful, sunny day. You tolerate the rain.”

I’m not writing this article to persuade anybody to be pro-life. I’m
not asking you to agree with me. I guess I’m not even asking you to
respect my views. All I’m asking is for you is to tolerate my free
speech rights.

Planned Parenthood is ‘pinkwashing’ its scandals with #PinkOut Day

Planned
Parenthood is still reeling from the baby body parts scandal, and so
far, all of their attempts to make it go away have failed. Planned
Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards will be testifying before Congress on September 29. The House of Representatives has voted to defund Planned Parenthood, along with multiple states that have already stripped them of funding. Even more states have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood, and several Congressional investigations have been launched as well.
So what is Planned Parenthood’s newest strategy to make it all go away? They’ve just announced #PinkOut Day,
on September 29. Supporters are asked to wear pink, turn their profile
pictures on social media pink, attend #PinkOut rallies in their area,
and — of course — to donate money to Planned Parenthood.

They’re essentially trying to “pinkwash” the issue away.

Planned Parenthood is trying to make
this an issue of an attack on women’s health care by “anti-abortion
extremists.” It’s another obfuscation of the actual issue at hand: Planned Parenthood is breaking multiple laws.
They’ve been caught illegally selling fetal body parts. They’ve been
caught performing illegal partial-birth abortions. And they’ve been
caught admitting that they manipulate abortion procedures so as to
better procure body parts to sell — also illegal. People are rightly
infuriated to know that Planned Parenthood is killing babies born alive after abortions in order to make a profit off of their body parts, that preborn babies are being ripped limb from limb when they’re able to feel pain, and then being sold.
But Planned Parenthood doesn’t want people to think about these
horrors; instead, they try to make it all about health care, when the
reality is that Planned Parenthood is not truly a health care provider.
In fact, health clinics outnumber their abortion mills by huge numbers. Thanks to Cecile Richards’ leadership, health care has plummeted
at Planned Parenthood, while its total revenues have increased.
Prenatal care, breast exams, cancer screenings, pap smears, adoption
referrals — all have decreased drastically over the years, while
abortion has steadily increased, even though Planned Parenthood is
seeing fewer clients.

Planned Parenthood wants to hide behind clever hashtags, urging followers to celebrate their abortions
and to cover up the horrors of has been uncovered with the color pink.
But does wearing pink make any of it go away? Does turning a profile
picture pink suddenly mean that the evidence of Planned Parenthood’s
lawless behavior has vanished? Would people be less horrified by the
video of Planned Parenthood executives talking about how clinics make a
“fair amount of income” off of the body parts of aborted babies if the
executives were wearing pink?
Planned Parenthood can try to pinkwash it all away, but America will not be fooled, and, as recent protests have shown, it’s not going to just disappear… no matter how many pro-abortion activists they can convince to wear pink.

The headlines earlier this week were all about how Hillary Clinton
had broken her silence and announced her opposition to the Keystone XL
pipeline during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa.
But from the single-issue pro-life perspective, the truly interesting
development was how she continues to ratchet up her defense of Planned
Parenthood in an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines
Register.
A questioner asked Clinton to expand on her criticisms of what GOP
presidential contenders said about Planned Parenthood in the second
Republican debate. As NRL News Today reported, they were unstinting in their critique of the nation’s largest abortion provider and repeatedly cited the ten undercover videos taken by the Center for Medical Progress.
To the pro-abortion former Secretary of State,
this was just “the Republicans trying to inflame their base against
Planned Parenthood.” Let’s quote what Clinton said and then respond.

“I defend, and I will continue to
defend, Planned Parenthood, because services that Planned Parenthood
provides are broad, and necessary for millions of American women. Five
hundred thousand breast screening exams. A lot of other screening
programs that are carried out. Family planning and contraception,
testing for HIV AIDS.

And the Republican have made it
clear in recent years that they are not only opposed to abortion, which
they have been for quite some time, they’re increasingly opposed to
family planning and contraception. This is a direct assault on a woman’s
right to choose health care. Forget about abortion, which is something
that a limited number of Planned Parenthood facilities perform, with not
a penny of federal money.

The money they want to cut off…is
money that goes to health services. That is why it’s important that we
continue to try to educate the public and draw a very clear line in
defense of Planned Parenthood.”

Three quick points. First, the videos used to “inflame the base”—are
these the same videos of which Clinton said during a sit-down interview
in late July with the New Hampshire Union Leader, “I have seen pictures
from them and obviously find them disturbing”?
That would be yes.
Second, pro-abortionists always act as if Planned Parenthood is the
only health provider. If federal funding is suspended for one year, that
money would be rerouted elsewhere. And PPFA does have a choice: it
could discontinue providing elective abortions.
Third, speaking of “draw[ing] a very clear line,” Clinton blurs every
line in her here, there, and everywhere defense of PPFA. The issue is
not, as noted above, family planning. It’s abortion, no matter how many
times Clinton wants to pretend as if abortion and “health care” are
synonymous.
As we have documented dozens of times there is a long-standing mutual
admiration society between Clinton and Planned Parenthood. As a
reminder, we’re reposting the article written by NRLC’s Dr. Randall K.
O’Bannon when Clinton officially announced her candidacy.
Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, and abortion—three peas in a deadly pod.

More babies born extremely premature are surviving, study finds

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. NRL Director of Education & ResearchEditor’s note. This appeared in the September digital edition of National Right to Life News at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsSept2015.pdf. Please pass along this and other stories to your friends using your social media networks.A
new government study finds that odds of survival have increased over
the last twenty years for babies who are born extremely premature.
“Trends in Care Practices, Morbidity, and Mortality of Extremely
Preterm Neonates, 1993-2012,” appeared in the September 8, 2015, edition
of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The
study followed treatments and outcomes associated with 34,636 infants
born at 22 to 28 weeks gestation (measured from a woman’s last menstrual
period, or LMP, so the fetal age would be about two weeks less).
The study reviewed hospital records for extremely premature babies
born at 26 academic centers participating in the Eunice Kennedy Shiver
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal
Research Network. [1]
The study complements a study published in May in the New England Journal of Medicine.
That study looked at the survival and outcomes of almost 5,000 babies
born before 27 weeks gestation at 24 hospitals from 2006 -2011.

The results from the JAMA study were, likewise, extremely encouraging.
In 1993, 70% of babies born at 28 weeks or earlier survived. That number had risen to 79% by 2012.
Survival increased most significantly for babies born at 23, 24, and
25 weeks, who saw their survival to discharge rates go from 28% to 33%,
52% to 65%, and 68% to 81%, respectively, over that same time period.

Survival rates for babies born at 26-28 weeks were up as well in
2012. They reached highs of 87% for babies at 26 weeks and 94% for
children born at 27 or 28 weeks.
Rates for children born at 22 weeks were up as well, though survival
remained rare. Just 6% in the study survived in 1993, but it had gone up
to 9% by 2012. Only a handful of babies in the study were born at this
stage (relative to the numbers born at later gestations), but generally
low survival rates are one reason why doctors try to take whatever
medical steps they can to delay birth as long as possible.

The 20 authors of the study were also encouraged that higher numbers
of the older preemies (27 and 28 weeks) were not only surviving but
being discharged from the hospital without any major problems.

Increases in survival and reductions in major morbidity are
attributed to improvements in care for these infants. Beyond measures to
delay birth and give time for further development, neonatal departments
were doing different things to help preemies breathe, for example,
giving mothers steroids before birth to stimulate fetal lung
development, using less invasive or aggressive measures with newborns
like tracheal intubation, ventilation, and chest compression, or
employing greater use of surfactants that help the babies’ lungs
function. When a baby did have to be delivered early, Cesarean
deliveries appeared to help the births be physically less traumatic for
the children.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were
about 450,000 preterm births in 2012. Up until 2006, the percentage of
births that were preterm in the United States had been increasing at
least as far back as 1981. The current rate, though, of 11.4% (for 2012)
represents the lowest percentage in 15 years.

There are thought to be many possible causes of preterm births, some
known (smoking, alcohol, drugs), others not. Researchers looking at data
from dozens of studies from many countries covering multiple years have
identified abortion as a significant risk factor associated with many
preterm births, especially those very early preterm (most recently, see
June 2015 NRL News).
As abortions have declined, and particularly those surgical abortions
that may physically damage a woman’s reproductive system, the number of
preterm births might also be expected to decline, as the data appears
to show.

One good thing about this new study is that it demonstrates that with
treatment, these babies’ lives can be and have been saved. If babies
can make it to 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks fetal age), it may not be easy,
but parents of early preterm babies do not need to be told that their
situations are hopeless.
Nevertheless, there are locations in the United States where babies
this same age can still be legally aborted. Even after the embarrassing
expose’ of its fetal tissue “donation” practices, Planned Parenthood
continues to advertise its willingness to perform abortions at 23 or 24
weeks at clinics in California and New York.

Others go even further. In the very first video from the Center for
Medical Progress, Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director
of Medical Services, helpfully offers the name of one of the “providers
who go beyond 24 weeks.”
These babies are obviously human and clearly alive. This recent study
shows us that because abortion is legal, the difference between those
babies who live and those who die is not a matter of medical technology,
but of our attitude towards human life.

[1] The article was authored by more than twenty neonatologists and
pediatricians from institutions all over the United States. The lead
author was Barbara J. Stoll of the Department of Pediatrics at the Emory
University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

The aggrieved innocence of Kermit Gosnell and pro-abortion congressional Democrats

By Dave AndruskoConsider
this stunning quote from Kermit Gosnell in a phone interview that will
be part of a soon to be released documentary about the West Philadelphia
abortionist convicted of three counts of first-degree murder:

“My youngest son asked me, ‘Dad,
did you do these horrible things that are in the newspaper?’ And I said,
‘Alex, I don’t want to lie to you. I really have to do a lot of reading
to feel comfortable that I, in fact, was on solid ground in my thoughts
and my approaches.”

So where would a man serving consecutive life sentences for
deliberating aborting babies alive and then slicing their spinal cords
go for affirmation that he was on “solid ground”?
For Gosnell, the Bible!
Gosnell went on to say (in a clip first heard at TheBlaze.com)

“And until I really completed my
first Genesis to Revelation reading of the Bible — which I did since I
was incarcerated — I really didn’t feel as comfortable as I am. I think
it’s Genesis 2:7, expresses the breath of life as the beginning of life,
that God breathed breath — breathed life — into Adam.

“The Bible, to me, is very clear that life does not happen until breath.”

“I very strongly believe in my
innocence and there are many people who believe that … who come to me
and say that, ‘How could you be this terrible person and people are
coming to you for 40 years.” The story just doesn’t make sense.”

(Genesis 2:7 reads: “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of
the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the
man became a living being.”)
Gosnell’s appropriation of Genesis for his own twisted purposes
reminded me of pro-abortion congressional Democrats, including such
noted theologians as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) They
purport to know more about what their Catholic faith says regarding
abortion than the church does, possessing a firmer grasp than, say, the
Pope. More about that in a moment.
The Gosnell documentary– “3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy”—expands
on a short film about the Gosnell case, entitled 3801 Lancaster, which
we wrote about on numerous occasions. According to Director David
Altrogge and Producer Jennifer Brown, the documentary, which opens
November 10, “chronicles one of the most controversial cases of the
decade and features exclusive interviews with Gosnell in addition to
detectives, police officers, jurors, and victims. A trailer that
included excerpts from the Gosnell interviews premiered online on
September 21st and immediately went viral.”
Gosnell’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua is fascinating on many levels,
beginning with the similarities between a man who aborted hundreds,
probably thousands of babies who were clearly viable, and many Democrats
in the House and Senate. For starters, both have a sense of aggrieved
innocence.

For example, in inviting the filmmakers to speak with him, Gosnell
had only one condition. As he wrote in a letter, “If you are able to
consider that my particular circumstances are exemplary of a larger and
more important issue, you will have my full attention and
cooperation….Sincerely, Kermit Barron Gosnell.”
From the beginning, Gosnell professed his innocence. Now he has
attached to his standard retort—if I was so bad, why did people from the
neighborhood come to me for decades—a misreading of biblical texts.
Thus he really didn’t do “these horrible things that are in the
newspaper.”
The pro-abortion congressional Democrats—the self-professed champions
of women (except for those in the womb)–are as thoroughly dehumanized
as Gosnell. This makes it possible for them to have no qualms about
voting against bills to extend federal legal protection to babies who
are born alive during abortions, to protect pain-capable unborn children
from experiencing excruciating pain as they are killed, and to prohibit
abortion techniques that use steel tools to tear apart a well-developed
unborn child by brute force. To them the unborn is just a something
that is in the way, a nuisance “used” by “extremists” (that would be
us).

Whatever the rationale, whether it be Gosnell’s bizarre defense that
the same baby who can be taken out of her mother’s womb to have
corrective surgery and then placed back insider her mother is not “life”
until she breathes, or the Democrats’ insistence that defending these
children is no more than a “partisan attack on women,” the outcome is
the same: the abandonment of children to the tender hands of the Planned
Parenthood and Kermit Gosnells of this world.

Yesterday 42 United States senators—40 Democrats and two
Republicans—voted against advancing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act. At his snarky best, Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.) dismissed the attempt to make the Senate actually vote on H.R.
36 as a “show vote designed to honor the political wish lists of
extremists.” Let’s consider for a moment what actually happened
yesterday and what it may portend.

First, while 54 senators (51 Republicans and three Democrats) voted
to take the bill up for debate, 60 votes were required. That’s the way
the Senate now works on “controversial” legislation.
What was it that we “extremists” wanted the Senate to vote on? What “extreme” legislation did H.R. 36 represent?
Here’s how Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chief Senate sponsor of
the legislation, characterized the Senate’s action (or inaction) in a
statement issued Tuesday:

“America is at her best when
she’s standing up for the least among us,” said Graham. “Even though we
were not successful, this votes marks an important milestone when it
comes to protecting the unborn. We took the first vote in the Senate and
were able to see where every Senator stands. Today, the battle begins
working to bring more supporters to our cause.

“There are only seven countries
that allow wholesale abortions at the 20-week period including China and
North Korea,” said Graham. “We should no longer be part of that club.”

At the age of 20 weeks or five
months post-fertilization, scientific evidence tells us an unborn child
can feel pain. Pain medication is administered directly to the unborn
child in second-trimester fetal surgery, in addition to anesthesia. The
unborn child shows physical, chemical, brain and stress responses
demonstrating pain at this stage of development.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act is based on science, has overwhelming public support, and
is necessary to protect unborn children from painful, and untimely
deaths.

But when something that ought to have been moved along for a vote
doesn’t, it’s easy to be disheartened. That is why Sen. Graham’s last
paragraph is so important to remember:

“I view today’s vote as the start
of a journey, much like the one we used to pass the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law,” concluded
Graham. “The sooner this legislation becomes law, the better. We are on
the right side of history.”

Passing legislation that is supported by the American people will
nonetheless always be tough sledding when pro-abortion members of
Congress are extremists times ten on abortion. But it can be done, it
has been done, and it will be done again.
Consider the very commonsensical parameters of the Pain-Capable
Unborn Child Protection Act. It extends general protection to unborn
children who are at least 20 weeks beyond fertilization (which is
equivalent to 22 weeks of pregnancy — about the start of the sixth
month).

And no matter how many deniers there are on the Democratic side of
the aisle, there is abundant evidence that by this point in development
(and probably earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience
excruciating pain during typical abortion procedures.
As NRLC said in a letter to the Senate

It is now commonplace to read
about evidence that, by 20 weeks fetal age and even earlier, an unborn
child responds to many forms of stimuli, including music and the
mother’s voice. Claims that the same child is nevertheless insensible to
the violence done to her body during an abortion should engender strong
skepticism. Abortions at this stage are performed using a variety of
techniques, but most often by a method in which the unborn child’s arms
and legs are twisted off by brute manual force, using a long stainless
steel clamping tool.

Anything else? Yes. The bill spells out the procedural requirements
that abortionists must follow when performing an abortion, including
seeking to preserve the life of the child whenever this is feasible. The
bill also creates specific requirements for the protection of infants
who are born alive during these late abortions.
Get that? If the child survives a late abortion, the abortionist is
not free to ignore the baby, to leave the baby to die unattended and
without care.

Pro-Life Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

Opponents of H.R. 36 stated, as if it were fact, that babies cannot
survive at this stage. But Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley
(R-Ia.) quoted from a Washington Post article, ‘‘That babies can survive
at 22 weeks gestational age has been known for 15 years.’’
Sen. Grassley also addressed the canard that such abortions are “extraordinarily rare.”

Some jurisdictions with the most
lax abortion policies don’t even collect data on the stage of pregnancy
when an abortion is performed, while other jurisdictions may have
reporting requirements but are not really enforcing those reporting
requirements. Because data on late-term abortions is not widely
available, it is hard to know what hard evidence really exists to
support the claim. We do know that several hundred doctors, and well
over 200 facilities across the United States, offer abortions after 20
weeks of fetal age.

We’ll be posting more about the Senate’s deliberation, so let me close with two quotes from NRLC President Carol Tobias.

One-fourth of premature infants
now survive when born at this stage – and there is strong evidence that
they experience great pain, as they are torn limb from limb in late
abortions.

And

Today’s majority vote is not a defeat, but a stepping stone towards victory.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

RU-486 at 15: An Infamous Anniversary

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & ResearchCome
September 28, it will 15 years since the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) announced official approval for the abortifacient RU-486 to be
sold in the United States. For millions of American women and their
aborted children, it is not an anniversary to celebrate.

Before approval, RU-486 was heralded as an innovation that would
“change the industry” and offer women a safe alternative to surgical
abortion. Experience has shown that while the packaging and presentation
are different, the end product is still the same – the loss of an
innocent human life – and women have been exposed to a whole new set of
physical dangers, risks that have also taken their own lives.
From the Abortion Industry’s point of view, all that matters is that
percentage of chemically-induced abortions has increased. Though it
started slowly, the numbers of chemical abortions has grown steadily
increased, from about 70,500 in 2001, the first full year these were
available, to 239,400 in 2011.
Thus chemical abortions represent nearly a quarter (22.6%) of all abortions performed in the United States.
For the rest of us, there are many other major concerns.A “new” chemical abortion method
The RU-486 chemical abortion is actually a two-drug technique, one to
kill the baby, the other to induce contractions to expel the dead baby.
There are multiple steps involved, occurring over several days. It is
bloody and painful.
In the FDA approved protocol, which the abortion industry has striven
to avoid from day one, a pregnant woman, no more than 49 days past her
last menstrual period (LMP), comes to the clinic. She is screened for
possible red flags that would disqualify her (e.g., allergies to the
drugs, chronic adrenal failure, bleeding disorders), receives counseling
about what to expect. If all is clear, she takes three RU-486 pills
(also known as mifepristone) there in the doctor’s office under the
supervision of the physician.
This drug blocks progesterone and thus shuts down the baby’s life
support system providing nutrition and hydration for the quickly
developing child.
Under the FDA protocol, the woman then would come back two days later
and take two tablets of misoprostol, a prostaglandin which, over the
next few hours, stimulates powerful uterine contractions to expel the
now emaciated baby. This part of the process can be exceedingly bloody
and painful, in addition to being psychologically difficult as the
mother encounters her aborted child.
This does not always happen right away. While about half of the women
expel their dead baby within the first four hours, some women take a
day, or even several days to abort. A certain percentage do not abort at
all.
A third visit 14 days after the first confirms whether or not the
abortion has occurred. If not, clinics seek to have the woman undergo a
surgical abortion to complete the process.

The industry alters the protocol
Bowing to pressure from the industry, the FDA scrapped more stringent
requirements that might have mandated ultrasounds and surgical training
to handle complications, requiring only that a prescribing
physician/abortionist be able to date pregnancies and refer a woman to
qualified surgical backup.
Despite the hype and all the promises of new, simple, safe abortions,
doctors found the new process complex and cumbersome. The abortion
industry’s early dream of using the drug to make abortion more
mainstream went largely unrealized. Few doctors added the drug to their
practices, with most the business coming from abortion clinics merely
adding the chemical method to their practices.
Sensitive to the resistance, the abortion industry tinkered with the
protocol, trying to make the process less onerous, not for the mother,
but for the clinic. First, they reduced the dose of mifepristone from
three pills ($90 a pill) to one, doubled the dose of the cheaper
misoprostol (a dollar or so a pill). This saved abortion clinics a lot
of money and increased their profit margin.
Second, they eliminated the second visit entirely. The woman took the
misoprostol at home and administered it to herself vaginally, rather
than by mouth.
The industry claimed this was to help reduce painful side effects
like nausea and diarrhea, but it was hard to miss that this freed up
office space and time for the clinics as well.
The industry found the FDA’s 49 day cutoff date too restricting as
well. It advised prescribers that the drugs could be used at 8 or 9
weeks LMP, or more.
Clinics also interpreted the FDA’s mandate that the drug be offered
under a physician’s supervision rather loosely, so that pills dispensed
under the authority of a regional abortionist might qualify. This
enabled abortion giant Planned Parenthood to begin offering chemical
abortions at many of its smaller, more lightly staffed clinics without
surgical facilities.Death plays no favorites
It was not long before reports of problems began to surface. Danco,
the U.S. distributor of the drug (made in China), was forced to send out
a letter in April of 2002 informing doctors that the FDA had learned of
six women developing serious complications after taking the drugs,
including two who died.
Three women suffered ruptured ectopic pregnancies and one of these
women died. Two women suffered serious bacterial infections. One of
those women died. One of the six–a 21 years old woman–had a non-fatal
heart attack three days after taking her pills.
Doctors were cautioned to watch out for ectopic pregnancy. The abortifacient drugs do not abort ectopic pregnancies.
These turned out to be only the tip of the iceberg. Over the next few
years, thousands of “adverse event reports” flooded the FDA, with news
of hundreds of women hemorrhaging, dealing with serious infections,
suffering from ruptured ectopic pregnancies. More than a dozen women
died, and there were more deaths associated with use of the drug outside
the United States. And that was of 2011!
In 2002 when a beautiful young teenager from California named Holly
Patterson died of C. sordellii, what was supposed to an exceeding rare
infection, the media took notice and questions began to be raised. The
FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) convened a meeting in
May of 2006 to investigate a sudden rash of such infections.An inadequate government response
Evidence from researchers clearly showed a link between the
drug-induced abortion process and the infections, and a sudden jump in
the number of fatal C. sordellii infections since the abortion pill’s
introduction in 2000. The government chose to look away, identifying
pregnancy, not chemical abortion, as the risk factor!
The government demanded no immediate changes. It allowed previous
modifications made to the label before the meeting, with additional
warnings, and earlier advisory letters sent out to doctors by the
distributor, to stand. Those letters gave cautions but denied any causal
link, and the drug remained on the market.
Some prescribers (Planned Parenthood) modified their protocol to add
antibiotics prophylactically (before the abortion) or to stop
recommending vaginal self-administration (theorized as one way the
bacteria was introduced). However, for the most part, the industry took
this as vindication that they were not at fault.

Details are sketchy with the government and media largely losing
interest with the “problem solved,” but injuries and deaths have
continued to be associated with use of the drugs here in the U.S. and
elsewhere.
An April 2011 FDA report requested by a U.S. Senator found more that
2,200 “adverse events” associated with use of the
mifepristone/misoprostol combo with 14 known deaths in the U.S. and at
least five more in other countries. Deadly infections killed eight of
the 14 in the U.S.

Doctors keep their distance with web-cam abortions
The industry has responded by trying to expand use of the drug
further. Planned Parenthood’s monster Midwest affiliate, Planned
Parenthood of the Heartland, pioneered the “web-cam” abortion in Iowa.
The abortionist is linked via a computer to would-be abortion patients
at small storefront clinics that might be a hundred miles away or more.
After looking at her record and asking a few questions, the
abortionist clicks a button that releases a locked drawer containing the
pills at the woman’s location. She takes the mifepristone there and
then takes the misoprostol home to administer to herself later.
She can call a hotline if she has any problems and go to her local
Emergency Room for treatment if needed. She is never in the same room as
her abortionist and he never actually physically examines her.
Abortion clinics in other states have sought to follow Iowa’s lead.
But pro-lifers have pushed back, passing laws that reinstituted the
original FDA protocol or mandated the doctor’s physical presence. These
have met with mixed success so far, with some operational, others under
some stage of judicial review. An effort by the Iowa Medical Board to
put in place rules to protect patient safety and prohibit web-cam
abortions were thwarted by the state supreme court earlier this year.Increasing numbers in a declining market
The promotion of web-cam abortions and chemical abortions in general
is just one prong of the abortion industry’s wider effort to expand the
pool of abortion “providers” in a down market. Abortions have fallen
from a peak of 1.6 million a year in 1990 to just over one million as
recently as 2011. The number of practicing abortionists has also fallen,
from a high of 2,818 in 1982 to 1,720 in 2011.
It is expected that the drop-off in “providers” would have been more
significant if not for the new abortionists added with the introduction
of RU-486 after 2000. The industry has made up for some of its losses
not just with web-cams that allow one abortionist to “practice” in
several locations at once, but by persuading states such as California
to authorize nurses, midwives, and physician assistants to perform
surgical or chemical procedures.
The less space, equipment, training, or responsibility required to
perform a chemical abortion, the easier it for the industry to establish
new abortion centers and find someone to facilitate these abortions.

As noted at the beginning, a lot of women have bought the sales pitch
and have taken the drug. One reporter put the number of American women
who have used it at 2 million (U.S. News & World Report, 9/15/15).
Their experience, however, has not always matched the hype.
Making abortion more abundant, but not safer

A young mom named Angie “live tweeted” her RU-486 abortion in
February 2010, hoping to “demystify” the process for others. As her
arduous nightmare played out over the course of the next 11 days (she
had originally expected the process to take 4-8 hours) – “Stupid cramps.
Aren’t we done #livetweetingabortion yet?” – Angie showed no remorse.
But, inadvertently, her example served as more of a negative than
positive advertisement.

The industry will keep pushing these drugs, though. One international
group, Women on Waves–unsuccessful in getting Irish and Polish women to
motorboat out to its “Abortion Ship” anchored in international waters
to have chemical abortions–has taken to stunts like flying “abortion
drones” across the border and having non-pregnant women take the pills
to protest the laws there.
The international abortion lobby has always seen chemical abortion as
one of the ways to bring abortion into less developed countries where
abortion may not be legal, just as they’ve seen RU-486 as a way to bring
abortion to communities in the U.S. where it is not wanted and no
respectable doctor wants to do them.

In 15 years, millions of babies have lost their lives due to this
medical “innovation,” and so have too many of their mothers. It is an
anniversary to mourn.